AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Critique of Busby

[Franz Schönhofer]

Dear Roger, dear Dan, dear Monty Charles, dear RADSAFErs,


Thanks to Dan, Monty and Roger for the clarifications, explanations and the
facts - please forgive me, but even in my wildest dreams I would not have
been able to imagine such a foul play: If scientific journals reject my
papers I simply found one myself with a scientifically sounding name,
hopefully receive a lot of financial support and funding probably from the
EU and other organisations. I will invite everybody "from the street" to
write a "peer review". Then I can boast with "peer reviewed papers", ask for
more money to continue these breathtaking research on the terrible hazards
for mankind. I can imagine that such great scientists like Inge
Schmitz-Feuerhake or Rosalie Bertell will write very positive peer reviews
and the financial support will therefore increase. Incredible!

As long as the mass media - and even the reputated ones like the TIMES - are
obviously in the hand of anti-nuclear propagandists I see little chance to
change the situation. The governments are not really doing anything to
correct the public opinion, because they need the "green" votes in Europe. 

Best regards,

Franz


Franz Schoenhofer
PhD, MR iR
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
AUSTRIA
phone -43-0699-1168-1319


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im
> Auftrag von Roger Helbig
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2006 10:19
> An: radsafelist
> Cc: letters at thetimes.co.uk; Elaine Hopkins
> Betreff: Fw: AW: [ RadSafe ] Critique of Busby
> 
> Since Dan is not on the RADSAFE list and Franz's comments were addressed
> to the list .. I am reposting Dan's reply.   I certainly hope that the
> London Times is beginning to realize that it has been had and has lost a
> lot of its credibility by publishing Busby's comments with minimal
> reportorial research.
> 
> Roger Helbig
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Daniel Fahey" <duweapons at hotmail.com>
> To: <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>; <rhelbig at california.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:52 PM
> Subject: RE: AW: [ RadSafe ] Critique of Busby
> 
> 
> Hi Franz,
> 
> I admire your skepticism and desire for information about the source of
> that critique.  I am a Ph.D. student in environmental policy at UC
> Berkeley.  I have worked on the DU issue for many years, and some of my
> reports are at www.danfahey.com; others are on the WISE Uranium site.  I
> have had several tangles with Busby and other extremists over their
> unsupported claims.  Busby sits on the board of the journal that is "peer-
> reviewing" his paper, so I thought I'd both point out to them the three
> major flaws I saw in the paper, and have a bit of fun with them by telling
> them this is my "peer-review" comment.
> 
> Regarding the natural v. depleted uranium, perhaps I should have made
> clear that in email exchanges with Busby last week, he confirmed to me
> that it was natural uranium, and not depleted uranium, that was found in
> the Berkshire filters.  He suggests that but is very murky about it in his
> paper.
> 
> I am not on the RADSAFE listserv, but I am happy that my note was posted,
> and I have received positive responses to it from several people,
> including some who know that Busby is a charlatan.
> 
> I meant no offense or trickery by sending out that note; I am well known
> to the anti-DU activists, some of whom think I am working for the CIA, and
> it was primarily to that audience that my comments were directed.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/